Bonsai Forum

TOPIC: One question

I've been learning alot about air layering but one question I have is that, if you air layered a tree, would that part effectively be 0 years old? As in would it's life had been reset?

I only ask as I do vaguely remember seeing some time ago; someone posting on a forum (maybe even this one) asking for advice on a very very old oak tree dying and alot of people mentioned about air layering it.

That's a good question. I know many people consider the age of the tree by how many years it has been in training, not by actual age (ring-count). But this doesn't answer your question. Year of start could really be one of two options:
1. When you decided to layer it
2. When you cut it off.
hrmmm.... Not sure. I've got a maple I will be layering next year, but I've been developing it in a large pot with sacrificials, etc. for six years. Would you consider the time of my decision, or the time I cut it off? Dunno. Imho, I'll say my tree started when I decided to prepare as a layer, so it's six years old.
As a side note, this all depends of success of layering, too.

I would say the tree you airlayered is not as old as the tree you took it from, but as old as the branch was that you airlayered.
The roots however will be new, and thus much younger. Also, it will grow new branches and leaves. So, part of the tree is as old as the branch was, and a part is younger.

Actually, the same goes for us. Seems parts of me are as old as I am, while other parts are very young

it depends on the cause of the tree dying. Often, trees die because the nutrient base around the tree is starting to bcome insufficient, and the distances to be travelled by water an nutrients make it impossible for the three to sustain itself. However, as a bonsai you are continuously removing roots, and only alow the tree to expand slowly. As such, bonsai can live very long without typical problems. At least, that is my understanding of it.

leatherback wrote: it depends on the cause of the tree dying. Often, trees die because the nutrient base around the tree is starting to bcome insufficient, and the distances to be travelled by water an nutrients make it impossible for the three to sustain itself. However, as a bonsai you are continuously removing roots, and only alow the tree to expand slowly. As such, bonsai can live very long without typical problems. At least, that is my understanding of it.

That's interesting. I am not an expert in biology, in fact I don't enjoy it. I read somewhere, that given perfect care and conditions a tree could theoretically live forever. I don't know if that's true or not, but trees can certainly live very long. The oldest tree on earth was a seedling during the ice age!!!

eangola wrote: The oldest tree on earth was a seedling during the ice age!!!

Interesting fact, do you have a source for that? What I know - up till now - is that the last ice age ended 12.000 years ago, and the oldest individual tree has a (verified) age of 5,065 years. The root system of the oldest colony of (cloned) trees - Pando -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
- is estimated 80.000 years old so not quite a seedling during the last ice age.

eangola wrote: Not quite a seedling but had roots at the end of the ice age.

If I'm reading it correctly, they all came pretty much later than the end of the last ice age.
Interesting:
"The visible portion of the 13-foot-tall (4-meter-tall) "Christmas tree" isn't ancient, but its root system has been growing for 9,550 years"
But the article I referred too writes that Pando continuously renews itself, so the upper part isn't new, but the roots are ancient - 80,000 years, so much older than your example. Not sure what the difference is.

eangola wrote: Not quite a seedling but had roots at the end of the ice age.

If I'm reading it correctly, they all came pretty much later than the end of the last ice age.
Interesting:
"The visible portion of the 13-foot-tall (4-meter-tall) "Christmas tree" isn't ancient, but its root system has been growing for 9,550 years"
But the article I referred too writes that Pando continuously renews itself, so the upper part isn't new, but the roots are ancient - 80,000 years, so much older than your example. Not sure what the difference is.

Fascinating facts though.

Yes I noticed the same thing. We still don't know for sure when the ice age ended, and where you draw the line. 80,000 years is crazy. I read a bout it, what do you consider the tree the root system or the upper part, idk.... And the nat geo article argues it is the "oldest living tree found in sweeden", but I can't see the difference between pando and this little guy either. I think whoever wrote the article was confused about it, or referred to as the oldest living tree in sweeden, literally . 80,000 years old living organism, wow.